In Reply To:
Wow, I thought I kept my post as cordial and tame as possible. Some amazing responses here considering that I made no grand or outlandish claims.
First, no where did I imply that interval training is something new to endurance sports that was bestowed upon us by CF. And it may be news to you but the ancient Greeks were doing intervals for their distance runners thousands of years before Zatopek. Your accusation is in itself "arrogant" and "ignorant".
Zatopek is a convenient marker because he actually discussed his training a great deal and because he competed in the modern era where we have video and other recorded data/footage/etc. Last time I checked, there aren't detailed training logs about ancient Greek athletes. Well, maybe there are, but they are mixed in with stories about guys holding the heavens on their shoulders and bashing each other with the masts of ships. Zatopek is a simply a convenient marker for the advocacy of high-intensity training for endurance exercise. How Zatopek trained was considered revolutionary at the time, something that can most certainly not be said about CF/CFE.
In Reply To:
Second, I never claimed that the training of the past 60 years was incorrect...unless by that you were refering to my wild claim that there will be improvements in the future. Improvement does not mean everything prior was incorrect. Do you not believe there will be improvements, CF or otherwise?
You wrote that, "...we might find out CF had it correct." Especially in light of comments from the likes of imbeciles like CF "guru" Brian McKenzie, I'd say there is an implication of "incorrectness." If CF was merely an improvement, why not say, "in 10 years, CF-style training might be an essential part of an endurance program." What you wrote clearly has right/wrong implications regarding training methodology.
In Reply To:
Third, I dont agree with your comparison of a swim race to a series of intervals. A flip turn does not provide the adequate opportunity to rest between the next maximal effort. I'm not sure of your training but when I do intervals I take breaks longer than 5 seconds and I actually allow myself to breathe. And cycling would be a better comparison...sitting in the peloton waiting for a break or the next climb.
Then would you care, for example, to explain to me why the 1500 SCM world record is roughly 20sec - or 2.5% WHICH IS MASSIVE - faster than the 1500LCM world record if flip turns don't provide an opportunity for recovery? Yes, speed off the walls accounts for some of it, but speed between the flags is also higher in all distance SCM records. Any SCM<->LCM conversion calculator has a fatique factor built in. Do a little poking around. It's pretty well established that the rest offered by a flip turn is extremely significant. If you do a lot of LCM and SCM/SCY swimming, you can experience this for yourself, assuming you have good technique on your turns.
In Reply To:
Fourth, admittedly my use of the word "comparable" is inadequate. A better example would be if you took a world class decathlete and stacked them up against a world class 10k runner, the decathlete would be closer to the runner, in terms of percentage, on the 10k run than the 10k runner would any decathlon event or any event that required speed, power, strenght....
And this is based on what? Based off 1500m decathlon times, where the best 1500m time ever in a decathlon is 3:58.7. Bekele, the world 10km record holder, has a 1500m pb of 3:32.3. That means the best 1500m running decathlete ever - over 1500m - is 12% slower than the best 10km runner (not even the best 1500m runner) ever. And that's for 1500m. I would be very surprised to see any decathlete run within 12% of Bekele in a 10km event. In speed events - Bekele's 400m PB is ~48sec (though he's never actually competed in the 400m at the high level or specifically trained for the 400m, so that's the best estimate from various sources. His true best 400m would likely be quite a bit faster). The best decathlete ever in the 400m - Toomey - ran 45.68, roughly 5% faster. The other decathlon events are very technique specific, so it's harder to make a comparison. But I would wager that with some actual training on how to pole vault, long jump, etc. Bekele could certainly do well. But decathlon really is a relatively poor comparison, because technique is such a massive part of every field event. I.e., even a male Olympic gymnast (hard to think of a better all around athlete) would struggle to throw a javelin or pole vault or put the shot or throw a discus effectively, simply because they are so technique specific. But, based solely on speed vs. endurance running events, it's pretty clear that an elite 10km runner would do better than the typical decathlete if you took the margin on 100m, 200m, 400, 800m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m. And that's based on actual data from real athletes, not speculation.
In Reply To:
Fifth, I 100% AGREE WITH YOU THAT ENDURANCE (and the ability to bike, swim and run well) ARE JUST AS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF FITNESS AS ANYTHING ELSE...problem is do you or others here really believe that? That implies that strength, power and speed are just as important as endurance. If everyone here believed that then we wouldnt have this debate.
Also, CrossFit is ABSOLUTELY all about fitness that can be applied to every day life. "...strive to blur distinctions between "cardio" and strength training. NATURE HAS NO REGARD FOR THIS DISTINCTION.' ---CrossFit. Run for the bus or train? Unless you are running 10k in your work clothes to catch said bus I am guessing the CFer is going to out sprint the average triathlete to the bus stop. Where do some of you get the idea that there is no cardio development or even running in CF. Just because you are not doing "cardio" doesnt mean you are not developing your cardiovascular system. Plus, CF leads to a balance of skeletal strength which helps in everyday life. Swimming is a skill. I havent been in the pool for a while and would consider myself out of swimming shape but I still have the skill to not drown and even out swim someone that is in shape but a bad swmmer.
I don't think anyone ever said there was no cardio development in crossfit. A huge part of what I've been saying is that CrossFit somehow touts as revolutionary things that are incorporated into pretty much every sensibly-trained athletes' program.
In Reply To:
Sixth, with regard to your "get from a to b" type race it really depends on how you set it up. I would argue that if it called for equal parts endurance, strength, power, speed, coordination, agility then the CF would beat out the triathlete. If you would set it up otherwise then that only proves that you do not hold up those other capacities with the same regard as endurance.
And I'd argue otherwise. And I don't think you have any actual evidence that you can lean on to support your claim. Neither do I, but I never held triathlon up as some holy grail of overall fitness, the way pretty much every CF/CFE proponent does.
In Reply To:
Seveth, are you implying that I have to study all those greats to have an opinion that might have any value? Talk about an "air of superiority".
Lord no. It's the internets. We are all about people making claims and statements without any support from anything other than their gut instinct.
In Reply To:
Eigth, may of you are right by saying that you need to specialize in a sport to be competitive in it. No where does CF argue otherwise and CFE is simply the attempt utilize the CF principles and help endurance athletes specialize in a different, they would argue, better/more efficient manner.
Uh, yeah. It's that whole "better/more efficient manner" thing that I take issue with. I think that's a pretty big sticking point. Maybe you don't.
In Reply To:
Finally,
NO WHERE DID I SAY OR IMPLY THAT CF ENDURANCE WAS BETTER THAN WHAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE DOES!!!!! IN FACT I AM NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED MYSELF!! (seriously, some of you are a little defensive) CFE is an interesting concept that should be explored and tested before it is so willfully disregarded...what is wrong with that idea?
Again, it's the idea that CF/CFE is somehow an "interesting concept" that people take issue with. It is NOT an interesting concept. It is NOT a new concept. It is none of those things. The parts of CF/CFE that are applicable to endurance athletes are really things that have been part of high level endurance training for a very long time. CF/CFE packages them as something new, better, different, but it isn't. I.e., the only good stuff in CF/CFE is stuff that has been around for 60+ (or 600+, if you want) years. And the rest of the stuff is shit you can throw away. I.e., nobody with any sense would say that core strength is not important to being a fast 10km runner. And that same person would also recognize that pull-ups are useless for that runner. The problem with CF/CFE is the shotgun approach that ignores any sense of analysis and specificity. If your core is weak, do exercises to stabilize your core because they stabilize your core. Don't do a bunch of exercises where that is an ancillary benefit that comes with a whole host of things that, at best, may not hurt you, and, at worst, may be detrimental to performance.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp